9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Discrepancy in declared goods and values in import consignments. 2. Assessment of assessable value and duty demands. 3. Reliability of transaction between Indian importer and Singapore supplier. 4. Application of natural justice principles in supplying evidence. Analysis: 1. The appeals involved two separate cases related to import by the same party from the same supplier, dealing with discrepancies in the declared goods and values in the import consignments. The Tribunal noted that the matter was before them for the second time after being remanded to the original authority to finalize the provisional assessment before initiating any penal action. 2. In the first case (party's appeal), the importer declared acrylic sheet off cuts but the consignment also contained multi-wall panels. The original authority enhanced the assessable value, leading to a demand for differential duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, resulting in the party appealing to the Tribunal. In the second case (department's appeal), the importer declared different values for acrylic sheet off cuts and multi-walled panels. The original authority also enhanced the value and demanded differential duty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the party's appeal, prompting the Department to appeal. 3. The party argued that the transaction between the Indian importer and the Singapore supplier was based on an oral contract at a specific price, emphasizing that the price at which the Singapore supplier purchased from the Belgium party was irrelevant. The Department contended that the goods were directly shipped from Belgium, with documents showing a higher price, shifting the burden of proof to the importer. The Tribunal analyzed the transactions and found discrepancies, leading to the rejection of the declared prices and the enhancement of the assessable value. 4. Regarding the application of natural justice principles, the Tribunal concluded that all evidence relevant to the dispute was supplied to the importer, and there was no violation of natural justice principles. The Tribunal upheld the decision to enhance the value and demand differential duty in one case while setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order in the other case, restoring the original authority's decision. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the party's appeal and allowed the Department's appeal, emphasizing the correctness of the assessment in law and the application of principles in determining the assessable value and duty demands in the import consignments.
|
